Lincoln was a Republican. It took many years to wring the truth out of modern day Conservatives, i.e.,

that they generally despise Lincoln.

Click to expand...

I didn't want to derail that thread, so I started a new one.

NYcarbineer is sort of correct. I am a conservative, and I despise Mr Lincoln for what he set forth vis a vis states rights. I don't speak for all conservatives, just for myself.

At the risk of pissing people off, I'm going to make some unpopular observations and comments about Mr Abraham Lincoln and his presidency.

There was no civil war in the United States.
A civil war is when two or more factions fight over the control of a central government. The south was not trying to take over the federal government, they were trying to leave an oppressive federal government and establish their own government. Very similar to the revolutionary war that we are all so proud of.

The popular (and misinformed) opinion of Mr. Lincolns legacy is that he ended slavery. Let me remind the misinformed that the Emancipation Proclamation was signed into law after the war was already occurring. It also did not free all the slaves, just those that were in confederate states.

Mr Lincoln was no great liberator, in fact, in the Lincoln-Douglas debate in 1858, Mr Lincoln had this to say,
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races...I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Mr Lincoln was a racist.

States rights were one of the corner stones of the US Constitution.
The war between the states was an aggressive act designed to place the authority of the federal government over the authority of the individual states. Since that war, states rights have been eroded consistently and the federal government has continued to flex its muscle in denying states rights. Mr Lincolns action set forth a path of federal government intrusion and violation of the US Constitution and that is what his legacy should be about, not the bs that schoolchildren are taught about him supposedly ending slavery.

Everyone knows or should know that the political party system was different 150 years ago. Republicans, democrats whigs and everyone else back then would have been appalled if they saw how close to tyranny left the democrat party drifted in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Who would have thought that the senate majority leader would have tried to influence opinion about a Military mission he authorized by telling the American people "the war is lost" (in Iraq) just as it was on the verge of victory? History means nothing to radical lefties . Democrats were segregationists in the 1960's just as they were in the 1860's and they are as anti-semetic today as they were in the 19th century. If it wasn't for the fawning support of the pop media the democrat party would have been laughed out of town 50 yerars ago.

At the risk of pissing people off, I'm going to make some unpopular observations and comments about Mr Abraham Lincoln and his presidency.

Click to expand...

Then theyd be getting upset for no reason.

Your assessment is essentially correct, with the exception of states rights and the legitimacy of secession.

Article VI of the US Constitution makes clear the supremacy of the Federal government as later confirmed by the Supreme Court. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), United States v. Darby (1941), Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

It is true, however, that Lincoln did not end slavery, that didnt occur until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

In Ex Parte Milligan (1866), the court ruled that suspension of Habeas petitions was un-Constitutional given the circumstances that existed during the Civil War.

As for secession, that was later ruled un-Constitutional in Texas v. White (1869). The South never had the authority to succeed, as when a state enters the Union it enters into a contract not only with the other states but with the citizens of those other states as well.

Consequently, although the Souths act of secession was illegal, so too was Lincolns response with regard to suspension of Habeas rights and the declaration of martial law, as the courts were indeed still functioning in Maryland and throughout the South at that time.

Also, Lincoln was no friend to the slaves, advocating their repatriation to Africa, and used the EP in a purely political context, in an effort to prevent foreign intervention on behalf of the South.

At the risk of pissing people off, I'm going to make some unpopular observations and comments about Mr Abraham Lincoln and his presidency.

Click to expand...

Then theyd be getting upset for no reason.

Your assessment is essentially correct, with the exception of states rights and the legitimacy of secession.

Article VI of the US Constitution makes clear the supremacy of the Federal government as later confirmed by the Supreme Court. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), United States v. Darby (1941), Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

It is true, however, that Lincoln did not end slavery, that didnt occur until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

In Ex Parte Milligan (1866), the court ruled that suspension of Habeas petitions was un-Constitutional given the circumstances that existed during the Civil War.

As for secession, that was later ruled un-Constitutional in Texas v. White (1869). The South never had the authority to succeed, as when a state enters the Union it enters into a contract not only with the other states but with the citizens of those other states as well.

Consequently, although the Souths act of secession was illegal, so too was Lincolns response with regard to suspension of Habeas rights and the declaration of martial law, as the courts were indeed still functioning in Maryland and throughout the South at that time.

Also, Lincoln was no friend to the slaves, advocating their repatriation to Africa, and used the EP in a purely political context, in an effort to prevent foreign intervention on behalf of the South.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ in opinion re secession.
Just as the US can remove itself from treaties with other countries, the individual states should be able to extradite themselves from alliance to the USA. Please remember, that each state was once considered an independent Nation-State. The joining of the individual nation-states was to form an economic and military alliance to rival the power of European nations, much like the EU is now a group for economic reasons.

The south was full of traitors who took up arms against their own country. Mr Lincoln saved our nation and turned a bunch of united states into THE UNITED STATES

Click to expand...

The US was a bunch of traitors against England and who took up arms against their own country (England).
Mr Lincoln set forth a tyranny against states rights.

Click to expand...

And the big difference was that Southerners had a Constitution that let them VOTE for their representatives. The traitors in the south chose to go to war with their own nation just because they were dissatisfied with a lawful election

The south was full of traitors who took up arms against their own country. Mr Lincoln saved our nation and turned a bunch of united states into THE UNITED STATES

Click to expand...

The US was a bunch of traitors against England and who took up arms against their own country (England).
Mr Lincoln set forth a tyranny against states rights.

Click to expand...

And the big difference was that Southerners had a Constitution that let them VOTE for their representatives. The traitors in the south chose to go to war with their own nation just because they were dissatisfied with a lawful election

Traitors got what they deserved

Click to expand...

Southern states chose to secede.
Arms were taken up by both sides.
No different than the revolution by the states from England.
The victor in war writes the history.

Are you in favor of the federal government trampling upon states rights?

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!